Friday, August 03, 2012

Our Austrian correspondent AMT alerted us to the following article, and included this note:

This is the translation of a guest commentary in Die Presse by Christian Zeitz. Germany’s discussion about the legality of religious circumcision has spilled over into Austria, prompting many comments, some of them particularly tasteless (Ariel Muzicant, former leader of the Jewish Faith Community in Vienna, compared a ban to a new Shoah).

Bottom line: if we continue to allow barbaric religious practices under the guise of religious freedom, one day we will have to legalize female circumcision, stoning, and polygamous marriages, as well as wife-beating.

The state should not prosecute circumcision among Jews, but should later allow damages to the aggrieved parties.

The lively and astonishingly broad discussion on the question of religiously motivated circumcision is both gratifying and useful, because it has publicized two realizations. First, religious and ritual interests also play a considerable role in our supposedly secular society. Second, many people are tired of the fact that any critical judgment of religious views and practices is immediately choked off and then quickly proscribed by using the stigma of discrimination against religious minorities.

This time, in fact, we have already had to hear accusations of “anti-Semitism” and “Islamophobia.” This emotional heating-up does not advance the goal of an unbiased resolution of the problem.

One thing is beyond question. Of course the surgical removal of healthy tissue constitutes bodily harm. The claim that it is (almost) painless, (usually) without complication and would entail no functional disadvantage is not a counter-argument. That would also apply to the amputation of the left little toe. The admonition that state-guaranteed religious freedom would automatically de-criminalize the procedure is also not so easy to maintain. After all, control over a small child, who has no choice but to allow an irreversible invasion of its body, is the precise opposite of freedom. It must be conceded that it is more out of the question for Jews (than Muslims) to negotiate away the ritual circumcision, because it is the unconditional prerequisite for the bond with Yahweh.

It follows from this that we must acknowledge there are religious doctrines whose practice contravenes human rights or secular, constitutional democracy. If commitment to the state is not to be dissolved, we cannot sweep the problem under the rug by automatically deciding conflicts between religious norms and state rights and duties in favor of unlimited religious freedom. If we did, we would eventually have to accept the burning of widows.

“Getting a Ticket” for Circumcising

What is needed is an open discussion about dealing with religious beliefs which are in clear contradiction of constitutional rights and civil liberties as well as state laws (such as right of revenge, punishment of disobedient wives and polygamy in Islam). On no account may “religious freedom” be placed in a position to invalidate freedom of expression (in religious criticism) or constitutional equality. The state and society have the right and duty in every conflict to carry out a balanced, respectful weighing and limiting of rights and obligations which serves the community.

In accordance with the principle of proportionality, a fair compromise in the case of ritual circumcision might look like this: The state forgoes criminal prosecution of circumcision with Jews (perhaps also Muslims) and explicitly allows it. At the same time, it offers the circumcised boy -- when he achieves his majority -- the opportunity to declare his circumcision to have been carried out against his will and seek monetary or other damages. This could also be a kind of “penalty” for the instigator.

Religious peace is not without cost. That is true for all parties involved. We should not deceive ourselves about that with false compromises.

Christian Zeitz is the academic director of the Institute for Applied Political Economics.

27
comments:

Anonymous
said...

It boggles my mind that so many findit acceptable to amputate the foreskin of a little boy's penis or slash out the clitoris of little girls. It bespeaks of a human race largely devoid of common sense...that strange ideas promulgated by persistent ancient primitivism should still hold sway. If for no other reason than their promotion of childhood genital mutilation, Islam and Judaism deserve no respect whatsoever. One recalls Scripture, that whosoever shall offend one of these little ones, it would be better that a millstone be placed around his neck and he be cast into the sea.

So let me get this straight. Eight days before birth, a woman is free to kill a baby boy and there is nothing morally wrong about that. But eight days after birth, to remove that baby boy’s foreskin is considered a crime against humanity.

I’m sorry; all of the moral arguments that I’ve heard to justify the banning of male circumcision for baby boys eight days out of the womb are just as valid when applied to those same baby boys eight days before their birth.

If one wants to ban male circumcision, then to be logically and morally consistent, one should also oppose abortion. So what is it, anonymous#1 and anonymous#2? Do you support the outlawing of abortion, too? Yeah, right. I didn’t think so.

Those pesky Christians that still believe abortion is both morally wrong and spiritually sinful. After all, thinking that a fetus is a living human being, deserving of the same respect owed any human is such an old and anachronistic religious notion. It’s a good thing that the modern state has come along with its progressive laws to stamp out such wrong-headed thinking. /s

The gist of the discussion here in Germany is, that the forceful practice of circumcision on minors is against the most basic law, and always has been. Adults opting for it are not criticized. One can name obvious reasons for a taboo on discussing this, but the ban is now broken. Finally.

Men and their sexual partners have VASTLY better health outcomes over their entire lives due to infant male circumcision. In fact, if Obamacare is truly outcome-based medical care then circumcision will be REQUIRED for all male infants.

P.S. My physician sister works for a urology practice and has verified for me firsthand about the extremely gross, serious, and painful health problems of older uncircumcised men - problems which lead to their being circumcised anyway as senior citizens after a lot of pain and hassle! Ouch!

Egghead

"Circumcision of males represents a 'surgical vaccine' against a wide variety of infections, adverse medical conditions and potentially fatal diseases over their lifetime, and also protects their sexual partners. In experienced hands, this common, inexpensive procedure is very safe, and can be pain-free. Although it can be performed at any age, the ideal time is infancy. The benefits vastly outweigh risks."

"Circumcision has socio-sexual benefits and reduces sexual problems with age and diabetes. It has no adverse effect on penile sensitivity, erectile function, or sensation during sexual arousal and is reported to enhance the sexual experience for men. Most women prefer the circumcised penis for appearance, hygiene, lower infection risk and sexual activity. At least half of all uncircumcised males will develop one or more problems over their lifetime caused by their foreskin, and many will suffer and die as a result. The benefits exceed the risks by over 100 to 1, and if fatalities are taken into account in men and their sexual partners the benefit is orders of magnitude higher than this. Given the convincing epidemiological evidence and biological support, routine circumcision should be highly recommended by all health professionals."

In accordance with the principle of proportionality, a fair compromise in the case of ritual circumcision might look like this: The state forgoes criminal prosecution of circumcision with Jews (perhaps also Muslims) and explicitly allows it.

So in other words the state should prosecute Christians and/or white people who circumcize their male children, but Jews and Muslims should get a pass. Are you seriously arguing for what is in effect affirmative action for foreskins?

Wildiris makes a good point about abortion (aka fetal murder) being perfectly legal, while we're talking about outlawing the relatively benign act of male circumcision. However, I think that circumcision is an excellent wedge issue to use against Muslims and other hostile Middle Easterners.

Circumcision, along with other barbaric Middle Eastern practices like halal/kosher slaughter, should be banned throughout Europe. Religious freedom should not include the right to torture animals and mutilate children.

If the practitioners of these religious rites feel so strongly about these issues, let them then return to their homelands where the freedom to slit throats and snip genitalia remains unimpinged. Banning circumcision and halal/kosher slaughter could lead to a *voluntary* mass exodus of Muslims from Europe.

Conservative and nationalist politicians should use these contentious issues to *peacefully* stop and even reverse the Islamization of Europe. Muslims and Jews who feel forced to leave for religious reasons could be compensated and then sent on their way.

Calling for the banning circumcision and halal/kosher slaughter are the perfect issues for us to use to further our ultimate goal: to stop the Islamic invasion and conquest of Europe. We should push them hard.

Wildris, abortion should also be totally illegal IN PRINCIPLE, but inevitably there will be raresituations where a panel of doctorscould decide/advise on abortion. What we have at the moment in the 'freedom-loving' West is 'Abortion-on-Demand' a total obscenity. The state should protect a child/foetusFROM THE MOMENT OF CONCEPTION.Anything else is MURDER. Circumcision is another obscenity and arguably damages the sexual health/mental wellbeing of the child.

I followed the debate on the German decision of a court to forbid this operation on the young children and that I approve to 100% … But I do not have any seen the least reflection or line of argument on the logical direction of this operation, in the same way besides that the excision…

Indeed, and it is only pure question of logic: The religious one always invoke god to perpetrate their crimes, and in this case (as in most of the cases besides) they appropriate themselves the right (divine) to correct by an operation, what is contained in the human genetic code, that is to say the direct ingeneering of god, since is god was supposed to have created us.

In this direction and doubtless possible, they consider that god did not do his work, was mistaken, did stupidities, too drank, wholesale this god is an incorrigible incapable one (visibly allah holds the palm of the deep inability, seen the amount of corrections… it is true that his book is worth the detour also regarding ignorance "divine", of plagiat of his competitor and of calls to the crimes )

If "god" conceived us A to Z, it not is therefore infallible, since according to the religious one, this is in the name of their god, or precisely than their god asks them to correct an "error" of conception such as the foreskin, the clitoris, or again the libido incontrollable of the men or the attractvity of the women, their hair, their face, implying to eliminate all their feminity , given by god , Including the vision of the body, of the face and of her beauty… I FORGOT that it also conceived the pork (oups) it is necessary therefore to forbid it or again the animals that it is necessary to kill of a certian handle, because otherwise this is also a divine problem … and I in pass a lot (Ramadan, prayers, women, children, drinks, dogs, birds, music, drawing, etc..)

In this every religious direction (and I assume without humor) is the worse one blasphemers for it carries attained to his god than it does not consider as infallible, indeed incapable to create a human sterotype, man or woman, or animals (halal or casher , genetically therefore) in accordance with their obsession, and allows itself therefore to correct or to eliminate what god gave (generously) to the men and to the women… (it takes himself therefore for god)

These blaspheme are imnombrables, drive all those that they entrainent in their madness, to criminal almost daily acts and should reserve them the better and the most terrible places in hell (think therefore, consider his god as an incapable one), or in prison (that they widely deserve) while awaiting the hell, for blasphemy crime, and to rot the life of all and of all the possible manners, by Its criminal fanatical absurdities.

But it is true that a religious one does not have any logic, or of reason (reason was him suppressed by the religion) for if it had a little reason, it no longer would be (oh that not) religious (it would realize himself the furious madness that lived it and idiocy of his belief),

Obviously I do not respect any religious or no swelling as for his religion, or no religious precept of which absurdity is evident to any person having the least reason… not more than I respect the crazy, the criminals, the sérials killers, the liars, the aggressive compulsive maniaco, or the drug salesmen very lasts (the opium of the people) to give an example of logical equivalencies of this to what I assimilate A religious one (a dreadful and dangerous individual any limit).

The day where the peoples, communities, families, Men, women will burn their religion books , that woll deliver them form that illness and will consider their "religious" poeple as criminals or crazy , which they are by incentives permamentes, then the world will carry itself thousand time better.

"It follows from this that we must acknowledge there are religious doctrines whose practice contravenes human rights or secular, constitutional democracy."

Yes,indeed. Unfortunately, Zeitz then proposes accommodation.

"In accordance with the principle of proportionality, a fair compromise in the case of ritual circumcision might look like this...... This could also be a kind of “penalty” for the instigator."

Does circumcision violate an individual's human rights or doesn't it, if it does, it's the business of the state, it's not some kind of civil contractual arrangement. The suggested 'remedy' seems to be just one of those 'false compromises' the author is attempting to avoid and the only beneficiaries of this hare-brained idea would be lawyers.

Anonymous #9's "Evidence-based Appraisal" is the work of a professor of molecular biology who has never seen a reason to circumcise he didn't like, up to and including "to prevent bathroom splatter" and "to prevent zipper injury" (as if circumcised penises never get caught in zippers!).

He spins statistics like a dentist's drill (once inflating five boys with recurrent UTIs in a population of about 35,000 into "19% of boys" by silently whittling the population down to a sub-sub-subset of 26.)

He goes beyond even his colleagues in claiming (on Australian television) that cirucmcision should be "compulsory".

It is simply not true that "Men and their sexual partners have VASTLY better health outcomes over their entire lives due to infant male circumcision." In the rest of the English-speaking world, the experiment has been done. They used to circumcise almost every boy in Austalia and New Zealand in the 1950's. Now they don't - it's hard to find a doctor willing to do it - and guess what? Nothing bad happened! No outbreaks of anything (except happy babies)! New Zealand's HIV rate is one of the lowest in the world. A generation of men looking unlike their fathrs, and no problems there either.

In a urology practice, Anonymous's sister is only going to see men with problems, and fail to notice the many circumcised ones, because that's "normal". If you do the numbers, you'd waste hundreds or thousands of circumcisions, with all their risks and costs, on babies to protect even one old man who'd neglected his personal hygiene.

And isn't there something very strange about defending a religious rite on medical grounds?

You discuss in very serious tones only those things which are Jewish related.

Not one of you would write the same things about Turkish/ Moslem practices because of the threat of violence. Only Jewish customs concern you because you know we're mainly non violent and try to persuade rather than kill.

I'm unaware of any neo Nazi or supremacist gang going after Turks in Germany. Why is that ? Is it because you're just a bunch of bullies deep down and are afraid of meeting an equal?

Emmanuel, whether you are a Jew or not is irrelevant, when your wife'sson is born it is the duty of the state to protect his rights. You have NO RIGHT to cut any part of his body off WITHOUT HIS PERMISSION. In addition it is EVERYBODY'S BUSINESS what you might want to inflict on an infant, and stop trying that 'anti-semitism' garbage on anyone who disagrees with you, it is an insult to our intelligence.

As a Jew, my reply is that Jewish practices whether in circumcision or butchering is none of your damned business.

As a white man and a Christian, I'd like to remind you that we live in democratic societies here in the West. So if one day a majority of us decide that we've had enough of your Judeo-Islamic animal torture and child mutilation, we will make it our business to put an end to these barbaric practices in our countries once and for all. What you do in your own countries is your business.

This gross interference is nothing but sophisticated Jew Hatred as the very term "anti-semitism"

If you can't abide by our humanitarian principals here in the Christian West, then you are free to return to the Judeo-Islamic Middle East where you may slit animals' throats and mutilate childrens' genitals to your heart's content.

Nobody is ordering you to copy our practices. Hands off!

Why would we want to copy your barbaric practices? We just want you to conform to our humanitarian principals in our countries, that's all.

All of you are funny

You discuss in very serious tones only those things which are Jewish related.

We're discussing things related to Judeo-Islamic religious rites in Christian countries. So? Should there be a law preventing any criticism of Middle Eastern rituals that offend Western sensibilities?

Not one of you would write the same things about Turkish/ Moslem practices because of the threat of violence. Only Jewish customs concern you because you know we're mainly non violent and try to persuade rather than kill.

You must be new here at GoV. Because the Baron and Dymphna bravely criticize Islamism on a daily basis despite the constant threat of violence. As for Jewish non-violence, tell it to the Ukrainians during the Holodomor in the 1930s, or your fellow Semites in Gaza and the West Bank today.

I'm unaware of any neo Nazi or supremacist gang going after Turks in Germany. Why is that ? Is it because you're just a bunch of bullies deep down and are afraid of meeting an equal?

Then you're just not paying attention. Regrettably, there have been neo-Nazi attacks on Turks and other foreigners in Germany. The best solution to this problem is to lock the Nazis in jail and encourage the Turks and other hostile Middle Easterners to emigrate through the application of laws banning circumcision and halal/kosher slaughter.

No, our customs are not your business. If Jews went wild over certain European customs, you'd call us impudent. That applies to you. I repeat, you only stick your nose into the affairs of the powerless. I'm not afraid to post my name!

You are entitled to your opinions and to your faith, but that does not entitle you to perform any act you choose based on any of them. Especially not against those who can not speak up for themselves. Religious freedom is to believe what you want, not to do what you want.

If society was based on such a principle, I doubt that you would want (or even be allowed to) live in it.

As human knowledge expands, religious practices change. It has happened before, and will continue in the future. Learn to live with the reality as it is, not as you would like it to be.

That has never applied to Europeans....My evidence is that the Moslems in Europe are immune to your rules and you're too cowardly to impose your will - Only to Jews do you dare to dictate.

This is simply untrue, a lie even if you know better. Jews and Muslims are in the same boat here being criticized for the same practices which are breaking the law. And it is criminal law, not just some misdemeanor. However, only Jews are actually engaged in efforts to discuss the matter, while most Muslims are utterly useless and uncooperative in this regard. This may lead to a lopsided representation in the media. From a Continental European viewpoint, also the Victorian tradition of circumcision widely performed in English speaking countries is in violation of human rights, it is just not oft mentioned as this problem is outside of our jurisdiction. But it may very well be that Brussels will start going after Great Britain with this, if the Constitutional Court refuses to buck down to the multiculti dhimmis in government and the topic is carried upward. Don't expect this to be over soon.

@emanuel appel:"you only stick your nose into the affairs of the powerless."

Whereas you (and Muslims, Americans Filipinos, South Koreans, tribal Africans and some Polynesians, Melanesians and Australian Aboriginals) stick knives in the genitals of the powerless. The campaign to protect infant genital integrity and autonomy is not aimed at any of those groups in particular.

"the Moslems in Europe are immune to your rules"

The baby in this case was Muslim. In the US, the campaign is mainly directed at "routine" male infant genital cutting for "health" reasons. It is only because that is virtually unknown in Europe that this case has taken the focus it has.

"You are no one to tell me what to do with my family" You do not own your family. As one man said, but more colourfully -"My family doesn't [urinate] with my [penis], my family doesn't [masturbate] with my [penis] and my family doesn't [have sexual intercourse] with my [penis], so what business did my family have to go cutting part OFF of my [penis]?"

Bottom line: if we continue to allow barbaric religious practices under the guise of religious freedom, one day we will have to legalize female circumcision, stoning, and polygamous marriages, as well as wife-beating.

What a strange remark. So male circumcision is a slippery slope to stonings? Ya think?

Whatcha think about conflating the generally harmless male circumcision with the profoundly life pleasure-disabling cliterectomy? Like their remotely comparable.

In some things - things not nearly so intolerable as the dreadful acts they were dubiously rhetorically joined with above - parents should have choices.

And I support "intactivism." Of course, I'm an American small gov't conservative, and to me merely discouraging the practice makes more sense than getting the gov't involved with personal choices.

I also have to agree with an above poster - about the weird creepiness of those who with THIS issue suddenly are all exercised with altruistic concern for the wellness of the sons of Jewish families.

American men are such wimps to let their sons be subjected to this absurd surgery. If it were women tied down & cut, the Feminists would be howling all over the world. The male genitals are a cheap commodity. There is no argument too absurd for the circumcisers. They insult the appearance of the intact penis, claim that circumcision heals everything from body warts to HIV, and draw an illogical distinction between female & male genitals.

American men are such wimps to let their sons be subjected to this absurd surgery. If it were women tied down & cut, the Feminists would be howling all over the world. The male genitals are a cheap commodity. There is no argument too absurd for the circumcisers. They insult the appearance of the intact penis, claim that circumcision heals everything from body warts to HIV, and draw an illogical distinction between female & male genitals.